Communities will need capacity—the staffing, resources, and expertise—to apply for funding, fulfill onerous reporting requirements, and design, build, and maintain infrastructure projects over the long term. Many communities simply lack the staff—and the tax base to support staff—needed to apply for federal programs. Even communities that can put together applications are often outcompeted by higher-capacity, coastal cities. The places that lack capacity are often the places that most need infrastructure investments: places with a legacy of disinvestment including rural communities and communities of color.

Places that receive the most external funding – whether from state and federal programs or philanthropy – often have larger staff, more expertise, and deeper political influence, not necessarily greater merit. Communities that need the most assistance may be the least likely to even submit applications. For the United States to fully adapt to climate-driven threats and bolster aging infrastructure, its programs and policies must account for community capacity.

Where is capacity limited?

To help identify communities with limited capacity, Headwaters Economics created a new Rural Capacity Index on a scale of 0 (low capacity) to 100 (high capacity). The Index is based on 10 variables that can function as proxies for community capacity. The variables incorporate metrics related to local government staffing, community education and engagement, and socioeconomic trends. (Read more under Data Sources and Methods below.)

Results are available at the county, county subdivision, and community scale in the interactive map below. The tool displays data across the urban to rural continuum to illustrate the variability in community capacity across the country. The inclusion of metropolitan communities is necessary to show the comparatively lower capacity that exists in most rural communities.

Large portions of the U.S. have limited capacity.

The Rural Capacity Index demonstrates that large portions of the U.S. have limited capacity. The Midwest has the most limited capacity (75% of Midwest communities, 76% of Midwest county subdivisions, and 68% of Midwest counties fall below the national median), followed by the Gulf Coast (59% of Gulf Coast communities, 58% of Gulf Coast county subdivisions, and 61% of Gulf Coast counties fall below the national median). Capacity is next lowest in the West and Southeast, and is highest in the Northeast, followed by the Pacific Coast and Great Lakes.

The table below shows, by region, communities, county subdivisions, and counties with Index scores below the national median.

	Communities with Low Capacity	County Subdivisions with Low Capacity	Counties with Low Capacity
Midwest	75% (3,245)	76% (7,531)	65% (463)
Gulf Coast	59% (1,860)	58% (1,471)	61% (324)
West	53% (893)	41% (414)	52% (146)
Southeast	51% (1,425)	47% (1,905	48% (337)
Great Lakes	43% (1,982)	44% (4,584)	41% (214)
Pacific Coast	36% (766)	20% (182)	31% (49)
Northeast	22% (807)	22% (1,352)	13% (33)

Sorted by the percent of communities where the Rural Capacity Index is lower than the national median, the 10 states with the most limited capacity are North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Montana, Arkansas, Kansas, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Summary statistics by state are available for download in the data spreadsheet. Alaska and Hawaii are not included in the state rankings due to incomplete data.

Using the Rural Capacity Index

The Rural Capacity Index can be used by communities to advocate for resources. It can also be used by federal and state agencies to more deliberately invest in communities that would otherwise be left behind. The Index can be used to target dozens of infrastructure investments, including transportation, outdoor recreation, internet access, education, and climate resilience projects. Below, we provide an example of how the Index can be paired with climate risk data to illuminate communities in need of support.

Where do communities with limited capacity face climate-driven threats?

Climate-driven hazards, such as flooding and wildfire, are increasing in severity and intensity and threaten lives, livelihoods, and community stability. Where communities lack capacity and have high threat of flooding or wildfire, funding and strategies for adaptation may be more difficult to access.

Across the country, rural communities with very limited capacity face high risks from climate-driven threats. Of the 5,511 communities with very limited capacity (the lowest-ranked 25% of communities in the U.S.):

• 1,306 (24%) have high flood risk;*
• 1,518 (28%) have high wildfire risk;* and
• 446 (8%) have both high flood risk and high wildfire risk.

* High flood risk is defined here as the highest ranked 25% of communities in the U.S. in terms of annual flood exposure according to data published by First Street Foundation. High wildfire risk is defined as the highest ranked 25% of communities in the U.S. according to “Risk to Homes” data published by USDA Forest Service, Wildfire Risk to Communities.

Use the interactive maps below to explore where limited-capacity communities face increasing risks from flooding and wildfires.

Supporting communities

To achieve the infrastructure and climate adaptation goals in federal programs, funding agencies must consider community capacity. Programs may need to be structured differently and new strategies may need to be created to support under-served and historically disinvested communities.

Using the Index, community capacity can be supported in many ways:

1. Provide direct funding. For communities with low Index scores, eliminate the need for competitive grants, which many lower-capacity communities lack the resources and expertise to apply for and administer. Federal and state programs can identify where the needs are greatest and allocate funding accordingly.
2. Improve access to competitive grants.
   • Allow funding to be used to build capacity—not just used for projects. For example, funding could be used for new staff positions and technical training to support long-term investments.
   • Eliminate or reduce match requirements. City and county budgets in low-capacity communities may not have the revenue to meet matching requirements.
   • Revise requirements for benefit-cost analyses. These technical reports are expensive and highly technical. They often undervalue the benefits of projects in lower-capacity and lower-income communities.
3. Fund technical assistance. Administered by state or federal agencies or by nonprofit partners, technical assistance programs provide expertise in project identification, design, and implementation, as well as assistance in compiling grant proposals.
4. Increase funding for multi-jurisdictional projects. Funding regional projects that leverage urban-rural partnerships can benefit low-capacity communities. This may require investment in regional institutions and organizations that can help coordinate resources and prioritize projects.
5. Address root problems. Low-capacity communities are often economically dependent on farming and other natural resource sectors associated with volatile revenue. By strengthening policies that encourage economic diversification, state and federal policymakers can help communities generate predictable local revenue needed for infrastructure and adaptation.

Limitations of a capacity index

While indices can be useful for identifying broad trends and patterns, they have limitations. Indices inherently combine variables, potentially obscuring the primary reasons such trends exist. To help reduce this noise, raw data is provided in the interactive map for each of the 10 variables that power the Rural Capacity Index.

Since variables for the Rural Capacity Index are based on data at the county and community scales, the Index will not account for regional- or state-level support that may be available. For example, in some parts of the country, multi-county watershed groups or state-level technical advisory organizations bolster community capacity.

This Index prioritizes rural capacity needs over metropolitan needs because metropolitan regions intrinsically have more capacity: more workers and resources. Additionally, rural places are often overlooked in the allocation of federal funding. However, this does not negate the fact that some metropolitan regions also have needs for increased capacity, which is not emphasized by this Index.

Most significantly, this Index relies on an imperfect, short snapshot of variables that can be quantified, but many components of community capacity are not easily measured. The resilience of people, the power of community cohesion, the depth and breadth of informal networks, and a community’s story are difficult to capture in a number. Capacity is also a dynamic state and can change.

Despite these limitations, the Rural Capacity Index can help identify places where more focus is needed and deeper research can be pursued. This Index is in its first phase and future iterations are planned. If you would like to provide feedback or have suggestions for improvement of the Rural Capacity Index, please contact us.

Acknowledgments

The team at Azavea, including Jessica Cahail, Daniel McGlone, and Adeel Hassan, contributed knowledge and technical expertise to this project. Azavea is a mission-driven B Corp that applies geospatial expertise to help address complex civic, social, and environmental problems.

---